[Yahweh’s1] law is slacked, and judgment [justice] doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth…. (Habakkuk 1:4)

This is the inevitable consequence whenever man compromises Yahweh’s standard of ethics with his own fickle, surrogate edicts. This includes the Second-Amendment established by the late 18th-century founders and its provision allowing us to bear arms in defense of ourselves, families, and neighbors.

For Christians who support the Second Amendment, this will very likely come as a shock. However, not only did the framers compromise and weaken Yahweh’s law of self-defense, they condemned the Second Amendment to eventual revocation for at least two reasons.

The optional rights’ repercussion

It’s often heard that the constitutional framers did not create the right to bear arms but only codified what was an already existing God-given natural right. However, there are two inherent problems with this oft-parroted assertions:

1) Except perhaps as the Paper’s timekeeper in Article 7,2 the Constitution knows nothing of God.

2) God and His Word know nothing of optional rights. Instead, the Bible is replete with God-expected responsibilities.

America began her trek toward the precipice she finds herself staring into today when the framers replaced the much more potent God-expected responsibilities (such as Psalm 149:6-9, Luke 22:36, and 1 Timothy 5:8) with Enlightenment-inspired optional rights (such as the Second Amendment).3 Such rights are easily controlled by whatever government happens to be in power. One needs look no further than the wording “shall not be infringed.” Despite this proviso, the Second Amendment is the most infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty-seven.4

The Constitutional Republic’s ever-infringing restrictions upon the Second Amendment’s optional right are indicative of a foreign government’s control over its subjects:

Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears: But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock. (1 Samuel 13:19-20)

Such is the inherent nature of optional rights, as contrasted with irrevocable Biblical responsibilities, such as the following depicted by the Apostle Paul:

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [including spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)

The next generation’s legislative impact

America’s next generation of civil leaders are being educated in a public school system that is aggressively anti-firearms. Children as young as five years old are routinely being expelled for plastic squirt guns, Pop Tarts bitten into the shape of guns, and pointed fingers.

You don’t have to be a prophet to see the handwriting on the wall. If the Second Amendment’s optional right hasn’t already been completely whittled away within the next twenty to twenty-five years, the next generation of public-schooled legislators will certainly repeal it altogether.5

Rebuilding the foundations

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3)

What can the righteous do? They can rebuild the foundations.

That the Second Amendment was doomed from its inception is not the tragedy some people initially think it is. Instead, it’s part of the means by which Yahweh is slowly but surely forcing us back to doing things His way. When the Second Amendment is finally repealed, we’ll have nowhere to look for protection but to Yahweh (Psalm 91). We will be compelled to look to His directives as the standard for all we believe and do, including the responsibility to bear arms in defense of ourselves, our families, and our neighbors:

Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword [or today’s equivalent] in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: This honour have all his saints. Praise ye Yah. (Psalm 149:6-9)

Then said he [Jesus] unto them, But now, he … that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke 22:36)6

Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. It was unlawfully deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

2. Chapter 10 “Article 7: More of the Same” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

You are quite right, Ted. The adulterating of God’s law with Enlightenment principles is what James Jordan would call The Nephilim Factor. He has laid this out nicely in The Case Against Western Civilization, Parts 1-7, which can be found at biblicalhorizons.com. Keep up the good work, bro’.

Anyone that doubts if the firearm is the modern sword, one should look at Lincoln’s prophetic speech about slavery being repaid by the sword and how five presidents have died (all shot and one poisoned) by man’s hand.

John, thanks for your input. However, you will find no sympathy for Chris Kyle here. The idolization of “America’s greatest sniper” is one of the many side effects of the false religion of American Exceptionalism. Unless such acts are carried out strictly in defense of American citizens, they are tantamount to first degree murder. Roger Mitchell does an outstanding job exposing the truth concerning the manner in which we idolize our military culture of death.

I do not idolize Chris Kyle, nor do I call him a hero, as he was referred to in Roger Mitchell’s blog. I called him a patriot, which he was 100%.

At least in my old Websters, patriot means “a person who loves and loyally or zealously supports his own country”.

> Roger Mitchell does an outstanding job

Unfortunately he does not.

It would appear you did not even bother to read my article, which was correcting a Congressman that calls himself Christian, that twisted Jesus’s words for his own use.

Otherwise you would not have sent me to a blog, where Roger Mitchell does the exact same thing. I quote him :

“Jesus did say that whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword.”

Jesus did not!

To say that means that person does not have a true or full understanding of the right to bear arms given to us by God.

I could correct him on Iraq and such too, but, if a person can not even quote Jesus correctly on a “Christian” blog, my chances of making a person see the light on the other errors are probably not that great.

Does the obligation extend to those to go seek others and declare the Gospel of peace like the crusades and if they don’t submit you kill them? does it extend to killing any people in your way – all types of “collateral damage” anyplace as long as you end up getting those you’re after? and then What say you about a ‘crusade’ such as the war on terror which is based on a lie? Patriot – Of WHAT ? A demonic lead whore who is working with antichrists to overthrow Gods People, a philosophy which is OPPOSED to the TEN commandments ? a Country OPPOSED to the Colonial Structure who placed Yah as their heads….. whom are you suggesting we admire and serve? In the name of Jesus every knee may bow–of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth–

John, thank you for replying. I most certainly DID read your article. I NEVER comment on an article, blog, book, or other material without first reading it.. However, I find your reasoning lacking. For starters, Chris Kyle was not in any fashion a true patriot. His exploits in no way served to make his country more free, nor did they help to ensure our liberty. but merely enriched the coffers of his handlers, and helped to spread tyranny.

As for misquoting Jesus, it might come as quite the revelation for you to discover that Jesus DID NOT speak the language of the KJV. There is no misunderstanding on the part of either
Pastor Weiland or Roger Mitchell concerning the words of Jesus, as well as their meanings.

“To say that means that person does not have a true or full understanding of the right to bear arms given to us by God.”

This is where your argument fails. There is NO SUCH THING as a “God given right to bear arms.” And lest you be guilty of that which you have accused others, you should do your best to grasp what is being said. ALL rights, by their very nature and definition, are ALWAYS optional. No one is EVER forced to practice a right. Compulsion makes something MANDATORY, not an optional right.

The principle promoted here is that it is REQUIRED of a man to do everything within God’s law to protect and defend his family. Part of that requirement necessitates that a man be adequately armed, and sufficiently trained in the comfort of skill at arms, to provide a proper and willful defense of self, family, neighbor, and community. Relying solely upon one’s right is tantamount to cowardice, when one chooses not to exercise said right. It is NOT our God given right, but our God expected DUTY to bear arms as part of our Dominion mandate.

You know, six days later I can’t say since I no longer have the e-mail you sent, to check the direct link. As for the Constitution and it’s “rights”, the stenographer on the House floor already sent the message from God, about what he thinks of it, and the free masons that wrote it, and that was enough for me.

Again, from Websters, patriot : “a person who loves and loyally or zealously supports his own country”.

Chris Kyle loved his country. Chris Kyle served his country. Chris Kyle loved his fellow country men. Chris Kyle loyally and zealously supported his country. He died supporting his country and fellow man. In every fashion of the word, Chris Kyle was a patriot.

When you start to add adjectives to simple descriptions then you are doing exactly what that article was attempting to make as a point, concerning heroes, elevating one man over another. Are you not? Putting the word “true” in front of patriot as you have done is just warping the meaning of the word to sooth your own sensibility and makes no sense. You are either a patriot or you are not, period.

Suppose I call Obama a true liar. What would that mean, compared to who? Satan, Bill Clinton, or a mother that tells her children Santa Claus and his elves are real?

How about if we start labelling people as “true Christians”? How will that work against John 3:16?

Chris Kyle was a patriot, no matter if you or I disapprove of what he did. It is as simple as that. You either are or are not a patriot, period.

> it might come as quite the revelation for you to discover that
> Jesus DID NOT speak the langu age of t he KJV.

It might come as a revelation to you I look up the words in scripture in the 4 major languages in the Bible and will sometimes compare Hebrew words to Greek words. Such as how the word “dog” (as the price of) is used in the OT testament and the word “dog” is used in Rev 21. Or waddle in Job 40.

As for Jesus, that could read the minds of men, consider this.
=====
Matthew 8
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
=====

What language do you think this Centurion spoke to Jesus, a Roman man most likely at least 35 years old and battle hardened. Do you think he spoke Hebrew, of the small nation they invaded? Or did he speak a more universal language of Greek maybe? Did “natural born” Roman centurions go about learning the languages of every country, nation, state, and city they invaded?

Matthew 27
13 Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?

Being a Roman ruler, do you think Pilate was fluent in Hebrew too? That he asked Jesus these questions in Hebrew? Did Pilate ask this question in Latin, Greek, or did he go out and learn Hebrew so fluently in such a small amount of time he could question captives in their own native language? Was this SOP for the Roman empire?

What did the Romans do in the UK?

Where is the evidence that Jesus did not speak Latin or Greek? Where is the evidence of the language interpreters? What language did the governor speak?

=================

This is where your argument fails. Maybe YOU do not understand the word “right”

Websters

right: A just and fair claim to anything whatever, power, privilege, etc. that belongs to a person by law, nature, or tradition; also, that to which one has a just claim: often in the plural; as, the rights of the laborer; an inherent right to noninterference; the right to acquire property.

A right I claim because Jesus said to go buy a sword, Luke 22:36, so I have a God given right to bear arms, to acquire the property, with an inherent right to noninterference.

As in:

2nd amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Still people think they can infringe upon Luke 22:36, natural law, and the 2nd amendment.

As for what the scripture says and means, the author is 100% WRONG, saying “live by the sword”. Period.

Matthew 26 (KJV)

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword.

This was said after Peter cut off the ear, when Jesus was being summoned to court.

take = lambanō
to take upon one’s self

Companion Bible:

i.e. on their own responsibility (Rom. 13.4)

Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

You do not use the sword Jesus said for you to buy, after this world rejected him, to take the law into your own hands. That includes being summoned to court to testify in the last days against Satan. Jesus said to settle in the way.

To say it is “live by the sword” is to be ignorant of what Jesus meant and not have a true understanding of Luke 22:36. More so for anyone that likens themselves to be a pastor or a blog of wisdom.

John, if Pastor Weiland is correct in his comment below, and you were merely adding something, and not criticizing the content of his article, then perhaps I spoke out of place and foolishly. If that is the case, then I apologize.

I wake up every morning and at night knowing we killed another 2700+ innocent citizens that day, before they drew even one breath of life. Nothing anyone can say about anything could offend me more then that, not even insulting family members. But, I imagine Satan will give it a go as the false messiah when he sits on the mount,

I was just adding something. Though I do take exception to people slaughtering Jesus’s word by saying “live by the sword” since that is absolutely NOT what is meant.

John, it appears that you have accused me of saying that Jesus said, “whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword”. I challenge you to copy the entire paragraph in the referenced article which this “supposed” quote appears and paste it here for the whole world to see. I have reviewed my work in the article mentioned and cannot see anything at all to which you refer. This makes one of us a liar. Who is it? You or me? If you can prove that I have made this comment in this article, then I will admit it. If you can’t, then you will have exposed yourself as a lightweight who merely spouts off about something which he really doesn’t understand. There’s a saying, “If you can’t put up, then shut up.” This is your chance to put up. If you can’t, then you ought to shut up.

Sorry, it must have been a different Roger Mitchell that posted this Feb 13, 2013 at 4:15 pm

Hi Joe, thanks for joining the conversation. Jesus did say that whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword. I don’t think he meant that everyone who shot someone with a rifle would be shot. Instead I think it was a general warning that individuals and societies which live and operated violently will have violence visited on them. “As you give, you will receive.” In this you are correct and quite often God does work plainly and openly.

John, I have been going over this discussion again and find that I did, in fact, make the statement that Jesus said whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword. This can be found in the Comments section, however, and not in the article itself. My apologies. However, even though Matthew 26:52 does not use those words exactly, it implies the same thought. “Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” (New American Standard Bible) ‘For all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword’ sounds extremely similar to ‘those who live by the sword will die by the sword.’

As far as your correcting myself on Iraq, I am open to hearing what you have to say. I don’t claim to have a lock on the truth and am always willing to listen in the hope that I might learn something new. Feel free, but understand that you are opening yourself up as well.

It does not mean that, not even close. Anyone or anything that says that is what Jesus meant are wrong, period.

> sounds extremely similar

The book was previously read.

The book was previously red.

They sound extremely similar, they are not.

Take a KJV Bible and a Strongs and look it up yourself, including Luke 22:36.

Or take a Companion Bible and read the side column. That is probably the easiest and best thing to do. Jesus was talking about taking the law into your own hands.

You know people such as Bill Ayers, that seeks to justify his terror and bombings by calling them a statement, by comparing his actions to something he considers more evil. Then lying about John Brown too, saying he did right.

It was meant for Christians such as John Brown and his family, before they decided to commit 1st degree murder at Harper’s Ferry and “take” the sword.

His last words ““I
John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land:
will never be purged away; but with Blood. I had as I now think:
vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed; it might
be done.” Witnessed by JW Booth who later shot Lincoln. He
was correct, nothing upsets God’s time tables.

What did God say in the Old Testament?

Deuteronomy 32:35King James Version (KJV)

35 To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

Do you think PP or Satan’s foot do not slide in due time? When Satan is thrown to earth he knows recompence comes to him in 5 months with 1,000 years in the pit to follow. That is why he is wroth and that is what abortion and birth control is all about. He does not want that 1,000 years in the pit.

Jesus was without sin, he received a legal summons to appear before the Judge, so, he did. This is what was said in context.

Previously Jesus said to settle in the way, before you are brought before the Judge.

So, knowing all this, if you receive a legal summons to appear before the anti-Christ you are not to resist it with violence. You do as Jesus did, you keep your mouth shut, you respond to the legal summons, and let the Holy Spirit decide your words before the Judge/Satan.

You do not do what Timothy McVeigh, Bill Ayers. and John Brown did. “take” the sword.

Let’s pray that when the foundation crumbles (and it most certainly will) the generation tasked with rebuilding will do so with our God mandated responsibilities an irrevocable fabric of a God centered law-order. In such a system, the law instilled in our hearts and minds will be known to all, and the desire for defending one’s self, family, neighbors, and community will in turn prove to be very rarely necessary.

This is my first post after lurking for months and reading much of Ted’s material that he send me. The above is also my prayer, and I came here today because of a dream I had last night. I’ve been especially worried about my brothers and sisters, the people God gave his word to. The same people that you, Ted, describe. Last night I dreamed that I was in a large living room and there were about 10-12 other white people. The living room was a upper middle class style, and the people were speaking about how it was time to do something about what was happening to our race. A deputy from the local Sheriff’s Office stopped by and everyone seemed to believe he was part of our group, but, I didn’t trust him and so he took me to the Sheriff’s Office and started asking me questions and I felt he was leading me to say something along the lines of believing in White Supremest views so he could arrest me. I refused to be tricked and I knew I was safe for I hadn’t spoken to him. Then I awoke. This country and most of the other European countries are so demoralized by what has happen in the last 50 years, I just pray that more and more come to sites like this and the other ones out there where people are trying to wake up others. O, dear, Lord, please be with us and help us.

As an educated person *admin* you will not need sophistry explained to you.
The Constitution’s explicit restrictions on the government of the United States of America prohibits almost all of the 20,000 gun laws that we currently have. That does not give the government, today, any more license that it had when the Constitution was put into effect as the Law of the Land.
Whether one calls bearing arms a right or a duty, functionally it is the same — and the restrictions on the government need no further clarification.
That some of the population never obeys the Law, does not mean the government can do likewise, even if there are those who will refuse to uphold the laws even while they obey those that they fear reprisal for breaking. The lawmakers cannot be allowed to be law breakers, they must be honest and that I fear is at the crux of much of the problems with agitation, propaganda and deflection we endure today.
The Second Amendment is not doomed: The Rights Remain. The Obligations remain.

The foundations of this nation are not crumbling, the courage and tenacity of the populace has been weakened by a love for the seven mortal sins, the currency of the dissolute — they are what hold the label of doomed.
And if this means, in literal terms, war, the cleansing will leave the strong to rebuild the damage of the slow decay, vigilance and responsibility will be restored to our society as part of a civilization that produces and excels once again despite cycles of disruption.
If that is not so, then all is just talk and moaning in endless suffering as we see in the rest of the world, since the earliest history, making all intellectualizing no more than a mere penumbra of cluster of dust in space. A rather cold godless puff of imagining no better than the dreams of rocks.
-GBA-

You wrote, “The Constitution’s explicit restrictions on the government of the United
States of America prohibits almost all of the 20,000 gun laws that we
currently have. That does not give the government, today, any more
license that it had when the Constitution was put into effect as the Law
of the Land.”

How well is that working out for you?

You wrote, “Whether one calls bearing arms a right or a duty, functionally it is the same…”

No, they are not the same. Rights are inherently optional. The Constitution does not force you to protect your family on penalty of some kind of judgment. The Bible responsibility is non-optional. For example:

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [including spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

If you know anything about the Bible, you know infidels will be judged. How much more so those who are “worse than an infidel”?

Thank you, kind of you to say.
You repeated the idea that the Constitution is the Law constraining the People by your construct; in reality it is the Peoples’ constraint on the Government — that is the contract. I am only amused by your repeating “How is that working out for You,” as if it is not the government, by use of force not authorized, that is remiss.

I am surprised you seem to not comprehend that when the function is not operative your distinctions show no difference, but only give a massage of the words and it all becomes devoid of meaning. Rights are not ‘optional’ — as if put on like a hat or badge — you may not blur that distinction with one of privilege which is bestowed by assumed authority; one may choose to act upon a particular right or select another, but our rights remain in a beating heart and clear mind. we need no license for those either.

An excellent example is we now have lawmakers who wish to force the People to be obligated by their lights to be responsible, again by use of force, to ‘protect their family’ and their health &c. by shifting standards and formulae with taxes and penalties and you, for your own reasons, put that to some metaphysical breech in the Constitution — I can only attribute that to cognitive dissonance.
The foundation of our corner of Western Civilization, etched in the Constitution most plainly, has as its only weakness if at all, in the need to maintain an experiment that should never end — so that many have been enabled to see for themselves who they are, where they are, what they are doing and where they are going. The search for meaning cannot have some abrupt end if you are a sentient human being, not horrified by freedom and liberty with their concomitant obligations.

The complaints that you have are not caused by, nor do they come out of, the Bible or the Constitution — but from human nature, which too must be respected. The honoring of contracts is found in each of these places and men that can be trusted live up to them, some better than others. To think otherwise prolongs suffering and delays resolution.
I hope you can appreciate your philosophical problems cannot be entirely solved by your approach, as they orbit around so many unanswered (eternal, by human measure) questions.
-GBA-
.

Dexter, I think every one here would agree that society’s problems originate in man’s inherently wicked heart. That aside, correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re comments seem to imply a belief that the cannon of the Constitution and, therefore, its ethics are immutable–either in place of or equal to Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments.

I don’t want to take anything for granted. Therefore, before proceeding, let me ask you some pointed questions in order that we all might better understand where you’re coming from:

1) Are you a Christian (if yes, what denomination, if any), a Mormon or member of the Latter Day Saints, an adherent to another religion non-Christian, an athiest, agnostic, or …?

2) Do you believe Psalm 19:7-11 literally–that is, that Yahweh’s moral law is perfect, His civil judgments altogether righteous, etc., and that, therefore, everything (including the Constitution) must be judged by its standard of ethics?

As for myself:

1) I am an unapologetic blood-bought Christian and ambassador for His kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven.

2) I emphatically believe in Psalm 19:7-11–that is, in Yahweh’s triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments) as the only standard by which everything must be evaluated.

Amen! That is, if you’re suggesting that we inform them that we take our Biblical RESPONSIBILITY to protect ourselves, our families, and neighbors VERY seriously, much more seriously (Psalm 149:6-9, Luke 22:36, and 1 Timothy 5:8) than do those with only an optional Second Amendment right.”

While were at, we might want to also let them know that when we finally restore the First Commandment and its judgment (as found intact in some of the 1600 Christian Colonial Constitutions) that they’ll be leaving our country permanently, one way or another. For more, see online Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.html.

Sorry for taking so long getting back with you; I just returned from a road trip.

Thanks for the link, I’ll take look a first opportunity I get.

I can assure you that most of those you’ll find responding here have read both the Bible and the Constitution.

As for the the Constitution being allegedly the best man has ever come up with: Even if it is, why would we want to settle for finite man’s fickle best when we can have Yahweh’s perfection:

“The law of YHWH is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of YHWH is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of YHWH are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of YHWH is pure, enlightening the eyes.The fear of YHWH is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of YHWH are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.” (Psalm 19:7-11)

You might also consider the following quotations:

“…As stated in the Preamble, another purpose of the Constitution is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” From childhood, Americans are indoctrinated to believe that, thanks to the Constitution, America is the freest nation on earth:

‘The media … has played a key role in persuading people that we are the most free nation on earth. While this may or may not be true, most people have never considered this possibility: If all of the other nations were under 100%
totalitarian dictatorships, and the United States of America was only under a 95% totalitarian dictatorship, it could still be said that “America is the most free nation on earth.” So it is a rather meaningless boast.’65

‘Suppose it be “the best government on earth,” does that prove its own goodness, or only the badness of all other governments?’66

“Convinced the Constitution would fail to secure and protect liberty, Patrick Henry voiced his concerns to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788:

‘…I say our privileges and rights are in danger. …the new form of Government … will … effectually … oppress and ruin the people…. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts, absolutely taken away…. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this
Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?
…And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce: they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences…. I see great jeopardy in this new Government.’67

“In contrast to the federalists’ failed predictions, this and nearly everything the
anti-federalists forecast about the Constitution has come true….”

Sorry for taking so long getting back with you; I just returned from a road trip.

Thanks for the link, I’ll take look a first opportunity I get.

I can assure you that most of those you’ll find responding here have read both the Bible and the Constitution.

As for the the Constitution being allegedly the best man has ever come up with: Even if it is, why would we want to settle for finite man’s fickle best when we can have Yahweh’s perfection:

“The law of YHWH is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of YHWH is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of YHWH are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of YHWH is pure, enlightening the eyes.The fear of YHWH is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of YHWH are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.” (Psalm
19:7-11)

You might also consider the following quotations:

“…As stated in the Preamble, another purpose of the Constitution is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” From childhood, Americans are indoctrinated to believe that, thanks to the Constitution, America is the freest nation on earth:

‘The media … has played a key role in persuading people that we are the most free nation on earth. While this may or may not be true, most people have never considered this possibility: If all of the other nations were
under 100% totalitarian dictatorships, and the United States of America was only under a 95% totalitarian dictatorship, it could still be said that “America is the most free nation on earth.” So it is a rather meaningless boast.’65

‘Suppose it be “the best government on earth,” does that prove its own goodness, or only the badness of all other governments?’66

“Convinced the Constitution would fail to secure and protect liberty, Patrick Henry voiced his concerns to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788:

‘…I say our privileges and rights are in danger. …the new form of Government … will … effectually … oppress and ruin the people…. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts, absolutely taken away…. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? …And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce: they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences…. I see great jeopardy in this new Government.’67

You’re missing the point: One doesn’t need something that only codifies an optional right when one holds to the much more potent non-optional, non-repealable, God-expected responsibilities, such as the following:

“Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye Yah.” (Psalm 149:6-9)

“Then said he unto them, … he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [including spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

At the same location, you’ll also find an interview Larry Pratt (Executive Director of Gun Owners of America) conducted with on the superiority of God-expected responsibilities over optional rights. I think you’ll find Mr. Pratt’s remarks especially interesting.

I think you do well to speak against freemasonry. However, Jesus Christ is the end of the law to all who believe. Jesus fulfilled the law in His death on the cross. Had Jesus not fulfilled the Old Covenant of the law in His death for sin, the New Covenant of His blood would not have been instituted; the temple vail would not have been split in two. The law requires death for sin. The law was fulfilled in Jesus dying in a sinless state to pay the penalty for all mankind. We are not under the law in Christ. Jesus ended the law by FULFILLING IT… in His death on the cross. (That is why the law was nailed to the cross and taken away).

I think the choice of the word “end” in Romans 10:4, was unfortunate. Rather, I believe the word “goa”l or destination should have been used in the translation. In my study of that verse, it is evident that it could not mean “end”, because that would contradict Jesus’ own instruction NOT TO THINK that the law was ended. Matthew 5:17-19

Once again, the end was not the end of the law period. Instead, the verse is very specific as to what Christ ended: “the law for righteousness,” meaning the Mosaic Covenant and it’s requirement to keep the law for righteousness or justification (Deuteronomy 6:25, etc.)

I explain this in more detail in “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” at “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant”.

Or, It could be read as “the ‘goal’ of the law is the anointing of righteousness. Or the ‘end’ or, destination of the law, is the anointing of righteousness. Jesus said: “If you want to live, keep the commandments of God” The one practicing righteousness is righteous…..1 john 3:7…actually, the whole book of 1 john explains this better than I could

No, I don’t think so. Furthermore, to do so, eliminates a powerful verse in harmonizing the 29 New Testament passages that appear to say the law has been done away with the 37 New Testament passages that say the law is still in effect.

In my statement about righteousness, I’m referring to initial justification, which under the New Covenant, is obtainable only through the blood atoning sacrifice of Christ. 1 John 3:7 is referring to our on-going righteous that is evidenced in our keeping Yahweh’s moral law.

Puritan minister Samuel Bolton (1606-1654) put it best, “The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to [righteously] frame our way of life.”

You are right about justification. Righteousness is doing what is right. Keeping the commands of God rather than thinking they’ve been done away with is what Jesus taught. The law has not ended. That’s all I’m saying.

I hesitate to respond again, but I’m not sure what you mean. The word used in Romans 10:4 is telos in the Greek, from the primary word tellos, which means goal or that point aimed at. To miss the mark, or sin, is to not hit that goal. The Law defines that, doesn’t it? To sin is to transgress the law. The same word is used in 1 Timothy 1:5 as in “Now the ‘end’ of the commandment (the goal of the commandment) is charity (love) out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned….”
So, the destination of the commandment or law is love. I’m not sure of what you mean by your second sentence. If you would, please explain a bit. Maybe I should try to find the writing of which you refer, namely The Law and the Kingdom: their relevance under the New Covenant. I believe the difference between the “old” and “new” is where the law is written….the same law, by the way. In the New, it is written within us, on our heart, so that we come into agreement with the Author of it in everything! Is there some part of the so=called mosaic covenant law that you disagree with?

While I’m reading your article, which I have started, but presently do not have time to finish, would you do a little research on the word translated “end” in many of our “English” versions. The same word, is also used at 1 Timothy 1:5 as is used in Romans 10:4
I still believe you and many others have accepted the definition of “end” as terminated…or annulled….but how does that work with 1 Tim. 1:5 the “end” of the commandment is love….You do see how it should be translated…the “goal” of the commandment is love…don’t you? As in a parent’s discipline and instruction has, as its goal, the proper loving functioning of a mature human being….

Note, telos can be either the goal or the conclusion or even termination.

If you have an Englishman’s Concordance by which you can look up #5056, you’ll also see there are many instances where only end as in conclusion or termination fits. Note especially 2 Corinthians 3:13 which is talking about the end and/or abolishment of the Mosaic Covenant that required perfect obedience to law (an impossibility) for righteousness, as per Deuteronomy 6:25, etc, and which was ended, per Romans 10:4.

It helps to understand a bit more of where you are coming from. Many anti-nomians hold a similar position, where they must think God an ogre, to require perfect obedience to an impossible set of commandments. The dilemma is solved with God, of course, in that all things are possible with Him, including obedience to His perfect, righteous and holy laws.

Ted, It was not the Law that was/is done away, but the veil that is done away in Christ (2 Cor. 3:14)..Verse 15 says: But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
Moses is still read today, but not understood, nor agreed with, by many today.
But, thanks to God, we do not have to be under the law of sin and death any longer, because Christ is setting us free. Free not to transgress His righteous commands. Free not to sin!

I didn’t say the law was done away (God forbid, Romans 3:31, etc.), but the Mosaic Covenant and it’s requirement to keep the law for righteousness. The context of Verse 13 is not just about the veil but the difference between the two covenants.

Thank God! I’m still just trying to understand what it is that you are saying. I’m pretty obtuse sometimes… Like Paul said in verse 12 “we use great plainness of speech”! Ha! So, you’re not saying the Law has been done away with. Good. Are you saying that one can be righteous but not keep the commandments?

OK. Verse 13 says: “And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:” What I believe this verse is saying is in context of verse 12…whereas Paul used great plainness of speech, or boldness….Moses’ face was vailed! So that the children of Israel COULD NOT see to the goal, of why things were prohibited in the Law. Does that make sense? The vail was there inhibiting the looking at the glory of what was coming….When all of Creation is fulfilling and keeping the commandments of God it will be glorious indeed!

I think preconceived ideas are getting in the way. The book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” should help.

Our righteousness is only through Christ’s atoning blood sacrifice and resurrection from the grave. We observe and display His righteousness when we keep His triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments.)

Trust me, you’ll not find anyone more pronomian than I am. The First few page of “Law and Kingdom” should prove that to you.

Hi Ted, I am enjoying your article, but have not yet finished it. It’s very good in a lot of ways. I’m just still having trouble understanding why you’ve concluded that the “Mosaic Covenant and its requirements to keep the law for righteousness” have been done away. Do you think that one can be righteous by not keeping His perfect law? I don’t think you’ve answered that question yet, that I posed earlier. Do you, for example, think that the requirement of the law to not murder, can be violated and still be in a state of righteousness?
How about adultery? Can one claim to be righteous and still practice adultery? Wouldn’t that claim be laughable?
What is wrong with the Law that you think it impossible to keep? (one of your earlier assertions)
I think you are very close to a lot of right thinking regarding the relevance of the Law in the Kingdom of God. Yet, I’m still confused that you seem to think its just requirements, for peaceful living in His kingdom, are done away with. It just doesn’t yet, make sense to me. Thank you for your patience while I continue to ‘rassle’ with the dissonance.

Under the Mosaic Covenant they were compelled to keep law (or at least try) in order to be justified/righteous before Yahweh. Under the New Covenant our IMPUTED righteousness/justification comes only through the blood of Christ. Then we continue to live righteously by adhering to Yahweh’s righteous laws.

Puritan minister Samuel Bolton (1606-1654) put it best, “The law
sends us to the gospel for our justification [our initial righteous unattainable by keeping the law]; the gospel sends us to the law to [righteously] frame our way of life.”

You should get one. Personally, next to my Bible, I consider the most important tool in correctly discerning Yahweh’s will on any word or subject found in His Word.

Strong’s Concordance is exhaustive; however, you have to know all the different English words any Hebrew or Greek word is translated into (e.g., telos: end, goal, etc.) in order for you to be able to use Strong’s in an exhaustive fashion.

Englishman’s, which uses Strong’s numbering system, allows to locate every instance a Hebrew or Greek word appears in the Bible by it’s number, regardless how it’s translated into English.

**The law was not fulfilled by Jesus keeping the law. To fulfill… means to END… to bring the law to fulfillment. The law is only fulfilled when there is DEATH for sin. That is the fulfillment of the law… for it is the law of sin and death. For Jesus to keep the law Himself in sinless perfection was keeping the law… not FULFILLMENT of the law. FULFILLMENT of the law… was in the death of Jesus Christ (in His sinless state) dying for the sins of all mankind. The law requires death for sin.

Though I can not dispute what is said in this article completely, The reference to Luke 22:36 is taken out of context. Jesus was not instructing everyone to go get a sword. You must read all of what was said at that time. This passage is often used in this manner to support the right to bear arms, but Jesus’ statement isn’t really saying that.

Aside from that, the writer of this article has neglected to consider, in my opinion, why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written and adopted in the first place, and why everyone just didn’t abide by what was written in the Bible. (That sounds a lot like an Islam expectation, eh?)

Certainly, the Bible provides ample evidence of a person’s rights to protect himself, his property, and his family and to even use weapons to do so, and to provide him free will, etc. But, and this is the BIG but, not everyone in a society, even the one during the founder’s era, believed in the Bible or would consider it a source of authority to insure a person’s rights or freedoms. The Bible, and Jesus, is very adamant about the Truth not being forced onto someone. (“Let him with an ear, hear.”) We must choose Him, personally.

The Founders knew this and so to become part of the society, people were required to relinquish some of their NATURAL (as in what God provides) freedoms and rights to the governing body by subscribing to agree to the law. There is a Treatise that explains this but I can’t remember which one by whom. Therefore, there was required rules and laws to be put forth for the society that all could choose to ascribe to, to become part of that society, without any consideration of religious convictions. So, the CONSTITUTION and BILL of RIGHTS were created to be “where the buck stops” or the final authority governing the defining of the laws.

Maybe these documents have codified what are natural and God-given rights and freedoms, and maybe it was intentionally done so, but the Constitution and The Bill of Rights was written to apply to all “men” (used to mean people) regardless of what they believed in. Since believing in the Bible could not, and should not have been, crammed down everyone’s throats to make people live by (or else, like the religion of Islam).

Pledging allegiance to the country and its laws (and flag and Constitution) was required. It was the common ground, the common thread, the rules of the law that everyone needed to support to be part of the society (a citizen).

They also knew that God’s Laws trumped even the Constitution because God’s Law existed before the Constitution, and they made the provisions within the 1st Amendment to absolutely prevent the government from interfering with the Church.

It is too bad that we lost that argument, somehow, in that it was completely reversed in its meaning, by redefining it to mean the Church is not permitted to get involved with government. (VERY liberal thinking.)

How they could turn the following upside-down is beyond me, but they did.
“The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the
church; the [European anticlerical] separation, on indifference and
hatred of the church, and of religion itself…. The constitution did not
create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them
already existing, and was framed for the purpose of protecting them
under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the
people, and for the people.”

Time doesn’t allow me to address all that’s here. Nevertheless, I hope you’ll carefully consider what’s found in the following:

Paragraph 2: You provided no proof for your claim. Christ’s instructions were, of course, specific to the situation and the disciples at hand. Nevertheless, it does provide a biblical precedent and Christ’s endorsement for bearing arms. It’s but another piece of evidence that must be considered along with Psalm 149:6-9, 1 Timothy 5:8, etc.

Paragraph 3: I would be very careful about equating Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11) with Islam or Sharia. You might want to consider how Yahweh views such a comparison.

Paragraph 4: The Bible provide no evidence for optional alleged God-given Enlightenment rights at all. Instead, it is replete with non-optional God-expected responsibilities.

Paragraph 6: There are no vacuums when it comes to the legislation of morality (or, more often than not, someone’s immorality). There is therefore no vacuums when it comes to the legislation of religion. The Supreme Court correctly ruled that even secular humanism is a religion. Someone’s morals are always being legislated and thus someone’s religion is always being legislated.

Paragraph 8: If only it were so. The fact is the Constitution itself proves otherwise. There is hardly an Article or Amendment that’s not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality

Paragraph 9: Christian influence in government was formally lost in 1787 when the late 18th-century founders replaced the 17th-century governments of, by, and for God established upon His immutable moral law for their own humanistic government of, by, and for the people based upon capricious Enlightenment and Masonic concepts.

Paragraph 10: It was the Enlightenment and Masonic framers (most of whom were lawyers) who turned the 17th-century governments of, by, and for God upside down.

As for the 18th-century founders Republican form of government of, by, and for the people:

“…Constitutionalists insist the United States government is a republic, not a democracy, but they never stop to consider that the two are virtually the same regarding sovereignty.

“Christian Constitutionalists further insist republics are Biblical. However, because republics (like democracies) rely upon the majority vote of the people for the selection of their leaders, rather than upon Yahweh’s choice (as per Deuteronomy 17:15), republics are not anymore Biblical than are democracies. Both democracies and republics culminate in a government of, by, and for the
people rather than a government of, by, and for Yahweh. The same is true with other issues voted upon by the people: ultimately the majority’s will is exalted over Yahweh’s will.

“As demonstrated in Chapter 3, both republican and Christian governments are ultimately theocracies. As a result, they are incompatible and hostile to each other. A republic looks to the people as its sovereign; a Christian theocracy looks to Yahweh. The very definition of a sovereign, or supreme ruler, excludes
simultaneous sovereigns.”

No worry about inundating me with too much information. I thrive on it, so thanks. I’ll certainly look into all that you have shared and if I gave the impression that God’s Law was somehow less than perfect, it was not my intention. It is the Truth, same as Jesus is. No laws defined by man can attempt to even approach being perfect, but His can and are.

My comparison to Islam was not directed at God’s Law, but at the behavior of men. Christians, or those believing they were Christians, had conducted themselves towards others inappropriately many times through history. Diverging greatly from the Perfect or even Acceptable Will of God. My comparison was that if Christians were to force others to profess to believe as they do, or suffer death, it would be no different than Muslim behavior. God does not want men forced into obedience to His Will by other Men, (there are many instances of the consequences people suffered because of their poor choice not to, though), and He doesn’t want men to profess they Love Him falsely. He wants men to Love Him for Who He is, which can only be accomplished by the freedom to choose.

Also, I fully understand that God is a jealous and vengeful god, and there has been no greater ending of human life than that which was incurred by His Will, either through the Holy Spirit (as with the Great Flood), or by the hand of other men (the Judges) obedient to His Will, upon those disobedient to His Will. But these were all consequences (or judgments of God) occurring after a free choice of disobedience was made. There is NO ONE that can be coerced into being saved by the Blood of Christ. Each individual must choose freely.

Understanding all this, I realize that God can and has used men with weapons to do his will, but Luke 22:36-38 recounting of what Jesus said, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t
have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was
numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be
fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its
fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.”

This was a fulfilling of another prophesy that Jesus explained with His statement, “It is necessary that the prophecy be fulfilled according to which I would be put in the ranks of criminals”.

The apostles bearing swords (even only two) would be more than enough cause to condemn them as criminals, and which Jesus was in the ranks of, therefore fulfilling what was Written.

Well, it is getting late here on the east coast and I want to read some of what you have sent me, so will bid thee a good night, for tonight.

In Paragraph 2, you wrote “God does not want men forced into obedience to His Will by other Men … and He doesn’t want men to profess they Love Him falsely.”

The second half is correct. Conversion is a heart issue and cannot be legislated. However, I think you need to rethink the first half. It would be correct if you were to say that God prefers men not be forced into obedience. However, for those who won’t willingly submit to Yahweh’s will as reflected in His commandments and statutes, He provide civil sanctions to either hold them in check or to punish them when they violate His law. Without His civil sanctions/civil judgments, His commandments and statutes are just good advice.